D.J. Campbell v. SCSC (DOC), 382 C.D. 2017

Background

Darrell J. Campbell was a Corrections Officer 3 (Lieutenant) at SCI–Rockview’s Secure Residential Treatment Unit and supervised officers McFee and Heverly.
On July 19, 2015 Campbell observed an inmate confrontation; officers restrained an inmate and completed DC-121 incident reports. Campbell allegedly directed McFee and Heverly to alter their reports to omit that force was used or to change the characterization of the event.
Investigators (Hoover and others) interviewed staff and inmates, found discrepancies and missing facts (including whether a television was in the control "Bubble"), and concluded the event should have been reported as an inmate-on-inmate assault and an unplanned use of force.
After a pre-disciplinary conference (PDC), Campbell was discharged for violations of the DOC Code of Ethics, failure to timely/accurately report incidents, failure to cooperate truthfully in the investigation, and inadequate supervision.
The State Civil Service Commission upheld the discharge after a hearing, crediting Department witnesses; Campbell appealed to this Court raising claims about evidentiary support, withheld PDC materials, subpoena denials, and failure to mitigate discipline.

Issues

Issue	Campbell's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether Commission findings were supported by substantial evidence	Commission relied on testimony that was impeached; Campbell's consistent account was ignored	Commission, as factfinder, may assess credibility and resolve conflicts; testimony supported findings	Findings upheld — substantial credible evidence supported Commission's conclusions
Whether Commission erred by refusing to produce unredacted PDC synopsis	Synopsis (including panel recommendation) was relevant and should be disclosed unredacted	Synopsis contained deliberative opinions; Department invoked deliberative process privilege and relevance objections	Commission erred to permit redaction but error was harmless because panel recommendation was unnecessary to just-cause determination
Whether Department had just cause to discharge Campbell	Campbell denied directing report alterations; argued disciplinary action unwarranted	Department proved omissions/misrepresentations, failure to supervise, and untruthful cooperation — affecting fitness for duty	Held: Just cause existed; misconduct reflected negatively on competency and justified termination
Whether Commission abused discretion by refusing to subpoena/compel witnesses (including Tice)	Campbell sought subpoenas for several witnesses (Tice, others) and asked record held open for Tice	Commission noted many witnesses already testified; additional testimony would be cumulative or a fishing expedition	With respect to most witnesses challenge waived; refusal to compel Tice not an abuse — testimony would be cumulative and unnecessary
Whether Commission should have mitigated discipline	Campbell urged mitigation of termination	Commission has discretion to modify discipline but is not required to do so; proven misconduct may preclude modification	Held: No abuse of discretion — declining to modify termination was appropriate given findings

Key Cases Cited

Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n (Manson), 4 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Commission is sole factfinder and assesses credibility)
Cambria Cty. Home & Hosp. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 907 A.2d 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (factfinder may reject contradicted or biased testimony)
Baker v. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc., 362 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (finder of fact determines weight of conflicting evidence)
Lewis v. Dep’t of Health & State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 437 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (trial tribunal best positioned to decide credibility)
Webb v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n (Dep’t of Transp.), 934 A.2d 178 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (definition of just cause and merit-related criteria)
Dep’t of Corr. v. Roche, 654 A.2d 64 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (misrepresentations and cover-up by corrections officer can justify removal)
Pa. Game Comm’n v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n (Toth), 747 A.2d 887 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (limits on Commission’s modification power where misconduct justifies termination)
Quinn v. Pa. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 703 A.2d 565 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (agency must subpoena witnesses necessary for proper determination; denials appropriate to avoid fishing expeditions)